Site Supporter

By Simon de Bruxelles
A 55-year-old woman’s nakedness upset her neighbours but a court has given her its blessing
A DISTRICT nurse who was arrested for sunbathing naked in her back garden was cleared yesterday of indecent exposure.

Lynett Burgess, 55, was videotaped by her next-door neighbours, who complained to police that the garden of her cottage was not private enough for that kind of conduct.

Miss Burgess, a nurse and occupational therapist who lives in the village of Llandyfriog, near Cardigan, West Wales, was arrested and charged with indecent exposure.

The videotape made by Morien Jones, 34, who has three young children, was shown to magistrates in Cardigan, who were asked to decide whether Miss Burgess had caused offence by baring all last July.

Mr Jones told the court: “I was renovating the back of my home with a local builder when Miss Burgess appeared in her garden. She walked back and forth completely naked and I went to get my video camera to record the incident. I have been extremely shaken by this. It has been very upsetting and worrying. I don’t want to bring up my children in such an environment.”

Mr Jones and his wife, Nia, a teacher, whose children are aged 12, 10 and 4, said that they could clearly see into their neighbour’s back garden from their cottage.

Maggie Hughes, for the prosecution, said that sunbathing nude, even in the privacy of one’s own garden, was not normal behaviour, adding: “A woman exposing her lower region could be grossly offensive to normal decent persons in society.”

She asked Miss Burgess: “What kind of kick do you get from this behaviour?” Miss Burgess replied: “How dare you. I take exception to the word kick and find you prudish.”

Miss Hughes: “I may be prudish but it’s not normal for people to sunbathe in the nude.”

Miss Burgess: “You are prudish.”

Trevor Emberton, chairman of Cardigan magistrates, told Miss Burgess: “You have admitted sunbathing naked from time to time and that this has become a normal pattern. We do not accept that you intended to cause harm or distress and, therefore, find you not guilty.”

After the hearing, Miss Burgess, who has a 20-year-old daughter, said: “I’m glad to get this over and done with. I intend moving away from the area and getting on with my life and occupation.

“I’ve lived more or less as a hermit since this blew up and I now want to put it behind me.”

Miss Burgess, who has lived in the village for six years, said that she regularly sunbathed in a secluded area of her garden.

“Sometimes I would wear a top and pants, sometimes I would go topless, sometimes nude. It depended on how hot it was.

“Lots of people do it in places like Greece and Kos. I don’t find that there’s anything wrong with it.

“How they were able to see me, I just don’t know. In court they said they could see me on all fours. It is not a position I would take for sunbathing.”

Miss Burgess said that the court case had been an ordeal. “I have been very distressed about it. I thought I was going to prison. I am a Christian and go to church. It has been a horrific experience.”

Mr Jones said: “We’re absolutely heartbroken by the result. This woman has been making our lives a misery.”

Originally posted by billwald: How does seeing a nude body harm a person? I think that many social problems would be abated if every person was required to be nude including fat old people.

Click to expand...

Bill, I also wonder about this. Culturally, we don't see people naked in most venues, but if we did, how does it harm us to view this part of God's handiwork. There is nothing "indecent" about the human form, male or female. It is culural to think that some parts of our anatomy are bad and should not be seen.

No, the offended neighbor should NOT have been out there videotaping her.

No, the videotape should NOT have been shown to a bunch of magistrates after she had confessed to it.

Where the greater source of unethical behavior?

A woman sunbathing nude?

Or a man videotaping her and showing the videotape to a bunch of other men after she admitted to her behavior?

They based their "not guilty" verdict on her testimony of WHY she did it after she confessed that she actually DID do it.

Why was the videotape shown?

Click to expand...

I don't know about this particular jurisdiction, but many places require proof, even if there's an admission of guilt.

That's what the video tape is.

Testimony is evidence, video is proof. We do it with Russian fishermen who flaunt the laws of commercial fishing. If we testify, they get a warning; if we video tape it, they get fines, suspensions of permits, etc.

The video would have to have been shown as part of the evidence; it was proof that she was committing the actions, but was it proof that she had intent?

and we still have guilt and shame and we still disobey God. We are still physically in our fallen state, even after salvation.

We don't do everything in public. This does not mean/imply that those things are shameful, just that they are private. Just because our bodies are not shameful does not mean that everyone else needs to see all of it.

I am reminded of the story of David and Bathsheba. Bathsheba went out on her roof and was bathing naked. David, whose domicile was higher up than Bathsheba's, saw her nakedness and lusted after her. Well, you know the rest of the story.

I think both were in the wrong. Bathsheba knew David was higher up than her and could see what took place on the rooftop. She should have put up proper shielding to block view from anyone who might glance that way. David was wrong in not turning away immediately after seeing Bathsheba. But, instead, he began to lust after that which was not his; which led to adultery, the death of her husband, and the death of a child.

The woman sunbathing in her backyard should have made sure no one could see her

Site Supporter

Originally posted by Diggin in da Word:
I think both were in the wrong. Bathsheba knew David was higher up than her and could see what took place on the rooftop.

Click to expand...

The Bible doesn't say that Bathsheba was on her rooftop.

It says that David was on HIS rooftop.

Allow me to to quibble just one little point here. Bathsheba did not know that David could see her, because all of the men were off fighting. The Bible says that David sent all of the men off to battle and that he should have been with them, but he stayed home.

Bathesheba's husband was far away and she probably assumed that David was, too.

She should have put up proper shielding to block view from anyone who might glance that way.

Click to expand...

Perhaps she was inside and David was able to see from his vantage point through a window.

The Bible does not intimate at ALL that Bathsheba was doing anything wrong or was in any way trying to tempt David.

David was wrong in not turning away immediately after seeing Bathsheba. But, instead, he began to lust after that which was not his; which led to adultery, the death of her husband, and the death of a child.

Click to expand...

David was wrong in being in Jerusalem. That what the Bible says.

Yes, he was wrong in not turning away, but his heart was already turned from being in the center of God's will because he was not where God told him to be.